Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

Pharmacists do not have the right not to dispense a legally presented prescription because of personal beliefs no matter how strongly held. They have a license which is given to them by the state and protects them from competition because they provide a regulated public service. They could just as easily refuse to provide cancer medication to buddhists because their teachings are blasphemous and they should not be allowed to live. If they cannot provide the service for which they are licensed, then the license should be revoked and they should go into another line of work.

Now, I believe that a pharmacy that is connected to a church can refuse to carry any medicines it wishes. But I believe an insurance company should not be cover purchases from such a pharmacy as the insurance has a tax subsidy meaning that to support such a place would be tantamount to government subsidy of religion. But these idealogues worship money more than god, and will not quit their profession or refuse tax system subsidized insurance payments in order to stand by their beliefs. Like many, they love God, but not THAT much.

They have a license which is given to them by the state and protects them from competition because they provide a regulated public service.

Realy? The street I live on at the moment has two Pharmacies within 50 meters of each other, I would hardly call that protecting them from competion.Are you sure you don't meen the Pharmacutical companies are protected from competion, what with Bush making it Illeagle for more than one company to hold certain pattents and thus alowing them to sell there goods at any price they chose.

Pharmacy workers have the right to refuse to dispense the morning after pill on the grounds of religion . Is this right?

Well, pharmacists have the right to refuse dispensing any pill (rather keeping the pill in stock) they choose as far as I know, so technically this would be no different.

Isnt this a case of one persons religious will being forced on others?

Yes and no. It depends on why the decide not to sell it. When it comes to the morning after pill it's got alot of complications that come with it. I used the pill once myself before, and let me tell you I had to sign a waiver that said I was of sound mind when taking the pill and that if any complications and/or death should arise that my Dr was not legally responsible for that. And let me tell you, that pill was so freaking harsh on my body, I'd advise no one to ever take it.

It's possible that the pharmacists doesn't like the complications it can potentially have, it's possible they don't want to in the future face a lawsuit, etc. They could view it as a moral issue and not a religious one as well.

It also has wider implications in that I suspected for a long time this would be a loophole exploited by fundamentalist christians who will deliberately place themselves in these jobs

lol really? Talk about a conspiracy theory.

Personally, I think this loophole should be closed. i think it should be illegal to refuse to give the morning after pill on religious grounds/quote]

I'd say yes on religious grounds, but how are you going to proive that is the reason they refuse to get it? I don't know about the US but here you can go anywhere to get it. You can walk into a free clinic and pay nothing to recieve the pills provided you sign a waiver. So if you can't get it in one place, there will be some place a few blocks away where you can get it. So I don't see it being a big issue.

and if you object then you must accept the fact you cannot be placed in such a position of responsibility if you refuse to take that responsibility

I disagree with that. Again a pharmacist can refuse to carry any drug they don't want to. So why should the morning after pill be any different?

We legally have the right to the morning after pill. Nobody has the right to make this difficult for us and cause the risk of an unwanted pregnancy in another person due to -Their- beliefs.

So you take your business elsewhere and find a place where you can purchase it. The morning after pill is effective if you take your first dose within 48 hrs of unprotective sex. I'm sure within that time you can find a place that will dispense it to you.

Shoes on feet, baby. Whose responsibility is it to take responsibility for putting oneself in a position of needing a contraceptive?

Feral...booyah lol I gotta agree with that one.

Yes. A pharmacist should have the right to withhold the morning after pill on any grounds.If you don't like it, get off your fat ass and walk to the next pharmacy.

Exactly bright!

Now ultimately it's all about $$$ in the end..so if that many prescriptions are being filled for the morning after pill at other places, pharmacists who were reluctant will more than likely start filling them theirselves.

I'd suggest people start perking up their ears and paying attention to what is going on in this latest wave of Radical Christianity. More importantly I think people who object to these views need to drop the taboo that they are going against God if the oppose these people.

This latest movement in Christianity is pushing to have the ability to tell you:

Where to go to schoolWhat to wearWho to marryWhere to spend your moneyWhat is right and what is wrongHow to spend your moneyWho to vote forWhat to teach your children What to readWhat to watchHow to raise your children

Before you say, "well I just won't go to those churches", or "I don't go to church", you need to understand that this is not localized to just the churches. Religious leader want to tell you how to live your life regardless of your religious or non-religious affiliations.

These are people that really truly believe that if you're not converting others or aren't converted yourself, then you are of the devil. This is their justification for why they get to tell you how to live your life.

So remember that right now you have a choice. You can take the morning after pill or you can wait and see if you’re pregnant.

If people keep turning a blind eye to the Radicals in our own country, soon you will not have a choice because someone else will be deciding what is best for you, your family. They will decide what you care about and what is important.

Not to long ago a woman was raped. While she was getting checked out by a doctor, the police ran her record and found out whe was wanted for stealing or something. They put her in jail for a week or so. While there, she wanted to take Plan B, but the nurse there wouldn't give it to her for religious reasons. Is that right?

While there, she wanted to take Plan B, but the nurse there wouldn't give it to her for religious reasons. Is that right?

If the pill was available in the jail as something that those there can request, than the nurse not giving it to her b/c of HER own religious reasons is wrong. Being a victom of rape tho, why wouldn't the hospital have offered it to her as a choice, or why wouldn't she simply ask there for it? Moving on... a pharmacist however has the right to carry any drug they want, and also to not carry it. If they are smart they won't cite the reason they aren't carrying it is for religious reasons should they decide not to carry it. Thing is with a pharmacy, unless the owner openly says "I won't carry it because it goes against my religion", you have no way of knowing why they won't carry the drug.

If a pharmacist has religous objections to providing the morning after pill, should they not have religous objections to working in a place that sells the pill? IMO- if the pharmacist does not object to working in the pharmacy that sells the pills, they should not object to providing them. Technically, a truly religous person would refuse to work somewhere that offers a product that to them is morally wrong. So, in other words, you're in for the whole thing, or not at all.

if the pharmacist owns the business, then he/she should have the right to choose to not stock the product. then it isnt "I refuse to sell it to you" ..it is "I am sorry, we dont stock that product" - that should be a business owners right!!!!! on the other hand, if the pharmacist is an employee, he/she should have no such right to withhold an available product based upon personal beliefs.

Sweet in answer to wether or not it is for moral reasons or for religious reasons.

Associated Press | Posted November 11, 2005 03:12 PM

Target Corp. is defending its policy on filling prescriptions for emergency contraception after the Planned Parenthood Federation of America accused the retailer of disrespecting customers' reproductive rights.

Target allows pharmacists to choose not to fill requests for emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs.

In the wake of a lawsuit filed last week that challenges the Illinois rule mandating pharmacies in the state dispense the morning-after pill without delay, State Representative Kurt Granberg, D-Carlyle, has filed a bill that would allow a pharmacist to decline filling a prescription for the controversial pill, because of moral or religious beliefs.

“Healthcare professionals have a right to refuse actions that contradict their moral or religious beliefs. While critics continue to mislead the public about the safety of the morning-after pill and its role in an abortion, it is my belief that life starts at the fertilization of an egg,” Granberg said. “This legislation, if passed, will ultimately protect a pharmacist’s right to not provide chemical abortions with the morning-after pill.” ...

Source:http://www.salem-tc.com/news/2005/1230/Published_Articles/

So it does appear that it very possibly is a religious issue. And that it seems to be a big question as to whose rights come first. Looks like something has to give. Maybe the bigger pharmacy's should have 2 pharmacists if they are employing someone that doesn't feel right about despensing the morning after pill. I wonder if they are Catholic if they also refuse to fill birth control pills.

no, never, it's not their business to decide what to dispense and what not to. they are there simply to follow a doctors orders (someone qualified to make the decision). What if the druggist is a Jehovah's witness, would he be able to say sorry I won't dispense anything because god will fix you up? What about if I don't think pain killers are moral? what next, being refused a prescription by some christian fundamentalist because you're going to burn in hell any way so why waste it on you.

Actualy it is there decision on what to dispence and what not to dispence. If you own a toy shop it is up to you to decide wether or not you want to sell Barbies or not, just as if you run a Pharmacy it is up to you to decide what drugs to stock and what not to stock. It is imposible to stock every drug avaliable and so they HAVE to make a decion on what they wish to stock, generaly they will make that decion bassed on what is the most requested and what will make a profit for thier buisness.

they are there simply to follow a doctors orders (someone qualified to make the decision).

Once again, untue. Pharmacists are not employed by the Doctors and do not have to follow his advice at all. Pharmacists are highly trained profesionals with a broad spectrum of busic biology, bacteriology, virology, toxicology and imunology as well as being specialists in the field of chemistry and pharmacology.

If a Pharmacologist belives someone to be abussing drugs, he is well with his right not to provide service to them.

If a Pharmacologist dose not belive in the efficacy of a particular drug, he is well within his right not to supply.

If a Pharmacologist belives that a particular drug could be harmafull to a patient, he is well within his rights to refuse treatment and ask the patient to get a second opinion.

If a Pharmacologist dose not stock a particular brand of drug, he is well within his right to provide an alternate brand of equivalant dosage.

For example, I have been advised by a Pharmacologist before, that the particular painkillers I had been subscribed by my doctor, would not work in conjunction with the anti-inflamitory pills I was curently taking, he advised me to take an alternative brand of painkillers that contained the same active ingreadient but a difrent carrier. He was right, the alternative did work, unlike the one prescribed by my Doctor.

Pharmacies are buisness, and as such have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This has always been the case and I hope it always will be. the fact is that if you want a particular drug, then you can get it. If one Pharmacy refuses to serve you, the next one will not be so picky. If a Pharmacy refused to serve and drugs on moral grounds, it would no longer be a Pharmacy, just another newsagent, and a new Pharmacy would open due to the high demand in that area. That is the way buisness works, refusing service is a good way to go out of buisness.

Pharmacies are buisness, and as such have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

and an African American walks into the Pharmacy and he says "sorry, I dont wish to serve you" and the query is "why not? is it because I am black?" and the repsonse is " I just choose not to serve you - I can choose that for ANY REASON".

It all depends on who owns the pharmacy in question. If it is Walgreens or another national chain, then the individual pharmacist needs to abide by corporate requirements. If he/she does not agree with those corporate requirements for moral issues, than he or she should go work for someone who agrees with their moral view of the world.

If the pharmacist is the owner of the pharmacy, however, they absolutely have the right to refuse to distribute the morning after pill. At that point, it is his/her business, and he/she can run it however he/she wants to. Walmart refuses to stock certain CD's and movies due to content - this would be no different.

Just let the market work it out. By my house, there are 3 pharmacies at 1 street corner. If 2 refused to stock it, I guarantee you that the third would simply to **** over its competitors. If it ever got to the point where all of them refused to stock it, all I can say is that the triumph of morals over money is so rare that at that point, it would likely be reflective of national attitude towards the product.

Not if the store doesnt CARRY the EC, but if it DOES carry it, then its employees are bound by their employer to sell any medicine they need to. However, this is no longer a problem in my state. We get it over the counter now. I dont know if this is all states, but in FL its OTC.

Now just change that for a some chick who got knocked up and really what's the difference?

It's not mom and pop's problem that you got knocked up is it?

OK emergency contraception is just that- CONTRAception. It is an antagonist to sperm and the uterus. What it does is prevent pregnancy from happening. Nobody uses Emergency Contraception to have an induced abortion. It is not the same thing as a medical abortion. It IS the same thing as birth control pills. It is basically like taking a hormone vitamin- it increases the amount of progesterone in your uterus, and creates a hostile environment towards sperm, so that they cannot survive long enough to fertilize the egg. If the egg happens to become fertilized, it also creates a hostile environment in the uterus so that the fertilized egg cannot implant (a VERY common and natural occurrence- but this makes sure it happens the way we want it to) and the egg gets released. This is not a pregnancy or an abortion. A fertilized egg must implant in the uterus in order for a woman to be preggers.

So why do they have to provide medicine if they have some religious problem with it?

Well, the pharmacy itself shouldnt have to carry Plan B, but if it does, then again, its employees have an obligation to sell it. Dont work in a porn shop if you dont want to sell the toys. Dont work in a restaurant if you cant bring someone a beer.

Its not Gods opinion, though- thats just the religibots ridiculously pathetic crutch that they use to justify their kneejerk reaction to abortion, which has now trickled down into contraception matters, like Plan B.

One of the factors we shouldn't overlook is the hypocrisy of the "me" or "boomer" generation. When they were young they wanted abortion on demand regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Now that they're older and less inclined to engage in sex even within marriage, they seem to want to vent their frustration by laying down the Christian law on the new young people. Merciful Jesus is well aware of the carnal inclinations of the young body. Certainly he will see the elimination of something less than a zygote as a far lesser sin than the wanton killing and wounding of the fully grown.

Did you hear about the morning after pill for men?You take it the next day and it changes your blood type

If the pharmacist owned the store, I suppose he could sell and not sell whatever he wants to.

If the pharmacist was an employee, he should follow company rules. If the company allows their employees to screw over their business with their religious beliefs, then fine - the pharmacist is allowed to deny selling plan B, band aids, tylenol, whatever. If the company doesn't allow its employees to deny selling items for religious reasons, then its pharmacists should act accordingly. Pharmacists with such beliefs should let the pharmacy owner know at the outset that they are incapable of completely fulfilling their job.

I agree with most people on this thread, and disagree with everything brightazriel said.

I agree with most people on this thread, and disagree with everything brightazriel said.

Firstly, please learn to spell my name corectly, I am no fan Azriel or his works!

Secondly, how can you posibly say you disagrea with everything I say when your previous paragraph is in total agreament with me? I have said exatly the same things you have said! In fact it looks like mot people on this thread are in agreament, that a Pharmacist is alowed to chose who and what they serve, but a clerk in a pharmacy store must follow the company policy.

I have been responding in view of Pharmacologists rather than the store clerks, because the store clerks have to take the company policy line and so any refusal to serve by them is actualy an indication of company policy rather than personal views. Plus the original question refers to Pharmacits, not store clerks.

This is a question of rights, a question of what rights supercede others, a question of whos' rights are greater.No one has the right to make it imposible to get birth control... but no one has the right to force you to do something against your will (this is called slavery and you people are suposed to be all against it in any form!) The right to freedom, in this case dose not suppercede the right to acces to medical treatment, for the simple reason that you can just go to someone else (I've said it before and i'll say it again, get of your fat &$$ and walk to the next store!) to get it, thus protecting both peoples rights.

sorry for gettin your name wrong bright1raziel (think I got it that time)Its mainly your rationale for things I disagree with I suppose. And I'm not sure where the pharmacologist stuff you keep talkin about came from, so I won't address it.

but no one has the right to force you to do something against your will (this is called slavery...

ahh yes, slavery. What a lovely and overdramatic term you have there. We want the pharmacist to do his job, and you equate that to slavery. Following this reasoning, I suppose we could equate every job to slavery.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, get of your fat &$$ and walk to the next store!) to get it, thus protecting both peoples rights.

And when the next pharmacist refuses stuff for their religious reasons, go to the next one. And when the doctor refuses medical treatment for religious reasons, just find another doctor. And when your employer fires you for religious reasons, go find another job. And if the laws don't work well for you, go move to another country.

I've seen people mention these "go somewhere else" solutions many times, and they just aren't solutions. You mentioned that going to the next pharmacy is "protecting both peoples rights" but it isn't, the pharmacist's rights were protected, but the consumer's was trodden on. The pharmacist is paid to provide a service, not to impose his religious will on consumers. And when you "move onto to the next one" you endorse such behaviour.

ahh yes, slavery. What a lovely and overdramatic term you have there. We want the pharmacist to do his job, and you equate that to slavery. Following this reasoning, I suppose we could equate every job to slavery.

Actually, tha's a bit inaccurate, considering what Raziel's trying to say. If you'll direct your attention to the majority of the thread, he's basically saying that to enact legislation to force pharmacies to honour all prescriptions would essentially equate to slavery, in that the pharmacist would have no option but to provide something he may not be willing to provide. Coercive measures such as that, honestly, would amount to government enforced labour. Hence, slavery.

And when the next pharmacist refuses stuff for their religious reasons, go to the next one. And when the doctor refuses medical treatment for religious reasons, just find another doctor.

Precisely. Nothing constrains service providers to provide services they are unwilling to provide. Find one who is willing, patronise his establishment, make him a rich man, and he will continue to provide. Meanwhile, those with ideological axes to grind have no moral quandaries about to keep them from the taxing work of finding ways to advertise businesses that are falling behind the market. Win/win situation, basically. "Ah, I love the smell of commerce in the morning!"

And when your employer fires you for religious reasons, go find another job.

Fortunately, this is one of those things that are happily protected in some countries. The whole "freedom of religion" and "anti-discrimination" thing. "It's a good thing." Oh, by the way, no, this doesn't actually parallel the topic, so I'll just leave it there.

And if the laws don't work well for you, go move to another country.

True that. The option exists. On the other hand (the one with different fingers), in representative democracies, there's also the option to put one's energy and effort into changing those laws. Ain't it a groovy world?

You mentioned that going to the next pharmacy is "protecting both peoples rights" but it isn't, the pharmacist's rights were protected, but the consumer's was trodden on.

How so? If the service is available, and a person is willing to pay for it, then how is that person being denied his rights?

The pharmacist is paid to provide a service, not to impose his religious will on consumers.

True. But it has nothing to do with rights. I go to a store, see if they've got what I want, and they don't, do I have a right to demand that they carry it in future? Or, do I have a right to find a place that provides what I want? Here's the kicker:

And when you "move onto to the next one" you endorse such behaviour.

I don't endorse anything by doing that, except the business of the establishment I do wind up going to. Capitalism is a funny thing, see? If I were to move on from the place that doesn't have what I want, they don't get my business. Other people wanting the same thing wind up passing on the place, the establishment doesn't get their business, either. Law of supply and demand, yatta, yatta, the place just isn't as successful as it could have been. No rights get screwed, nobody goes home stupid-mad (except those with an ideological stake in what other people do), and life goes on. Happy, happy life; gotta love it!

Sweet in answer to wether or not it is for moral reasons or for religious reasons.

Target allows pharmacists to choose not to fill requests for emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs

Hrm...that's such a slippery slope. I mean is it at every store the pharmacist can decide to not offer it if they choose (as in the owner of each particular pharmacy) or the other pharmacists that work within the pharmacy that dispence the drug? I'd say if the owner of the target in question carries it, than any pharmacist that works there should have to dispense it if it's requested.

I don't think a pharmacy should deny carrying it for religious reasons, but at the same time...if the company as a whole is allowing that policy, unless people boycott target...there's not much that can be done. Because you can walk to another target and get it there.

Money talks in the end..if one company finds out that they are losing $$$ in the end by not offering it, you'll see how quickly they'll turn their policy around.

ahh yes, slavery. What a lovely and overdramatic term you have there. We want the pharmacist to do his job, and you equate that to slavery.

The Dramacy, of my statements ,akes no diferance to the efficacy of the information provided therein.

Following this reasoning, I suppose we could equate every job to slavery.

No you couldn't, nice Straw-Man though. If you actualy read what I said, it will become evident that I was stateing that FORCING Pharmacists to perform a job against thier will, is tantemount to slavery, just as forcing someone to pick cotton in a field is.

In any job you always have the option not to do something. You may recive disiplinary action for it, but there is no law forcing you to work. You always have the option to not work should chose to. FORCING pharmacists to provide a service takes away that option. It is a very fine line but it is also a VERY clearly defined one.

And when the next pharmacist refuses stuff for their religious reasons, go to the next one.

Now you get it!

when the doctor refuses medical treatment for religious reasons, just find another doctor.

Yup, just find another Doctor, and when all of his patients leave for the same reason he will lose his job without having lost his right to freadom of religious expression. See its very simple when you yhink about it.

And when your employer fires you for religious reasons, go find another job.

Ah now there is where the buck stops. This is an entirely diffrent thing to refusal of service. When you are employed with someone they have a duty of care towards you and that takes presidence over thier right to freadom of religion.

You are under thier care and they have a legal duty to treat you with respect and honourably, including not alowing thier own religious convictions to affect your situation. It was a nice segue, but this point is not the same as the previous two.

And if the laws don't work well for you, go move to another country.

Or alternativly try to subvert the law to your own views. There is nothing stoping you from doing this so long as you go through the corect legal chanels. The laws of a democracy such as yours as desighned to protect public opinion rather than reflect personal views. Should you wish to change the law and your view is inline with public opinion then you should be able to do so.

Don't you love Democracy.

I've seen people mention these "go somewhere else" solutions many times, and they just aren't solutions.

How so? We are not talking about a majority of Pharmaists here, we are talking about one or two acros the country. Going nextdoor is the perfect solution because the cances of having two pharmacists next to each other who have the same policies are astronicaly low.

You mentioned that going to the next pharmacy is "protecting both peoples rights" but it isn't, the pharmacist's rights were protected, but the consumer's was trodden on.

No they were not, your rstatutory rights are not effected by the purchus of certain products, (as you can see on the packaging of many such items) nor are your statutory rights effected by the deny of serice at a paricular store. The only way your right to purchase is effected is if it is not possible for you to purchase such a thing anywhere at all.

The pharmacist is paid to provide a service, not to impose his religious will on consumers.

Unless the pharmaists exercises his right to refuse ervice to you, then he is not payed at all. Thus the system still holds well. Consumer rights only come into play when you are a consumer, if you do not pay for a service (ie if the Pharmacists refuses you service) then you are not a consumer and subject to consumer rights.

And when you "move onto to the next one" you endorse such behaviour.

When you move onto the next one, there are several things you are endorcing. ou are endorsing the nexts pharmacists desicion to provide you with a service. You are endorsing the previous Pharmacists right to freadom of opinion. And you are endorsing your own right to chose the service provider that most suits your needs.

-------------------------------------------------------

Actually, tha's a bit inaccurate, considering what Raziel's trying to say. If you'll direct your attention to the majority of the thread, he's basically saying that to enact legislation to force pharmacies to honour all prescriptions would essentially equate to slavery, in that the pharmacist would have no option but to provide something he may not be willing to provide. Coercive measures such as that, honestly, would amount to government enforced labour. Hence, slavery.

Thank you Feral, its nice to see that my arguments do not fall on deaf ears. If there is one thing I love about the USA, it is that constitution thingy! The unasaliable rights of the indaviduals defined therein are the best model I have ever seen for a moral structure. I love the Constitution so very dearly and will always argue in defence of the spirit of the document.